Prediction of the Bullet Effect for Rockfall Barriers: a Scaling Approach


The so-called “bullet effect” refers to the perforation of a rockfall protection mesh by impact of a small block, which has a kinetic energy lower than the design value, where the design value is determined through tests with relatively large blocks. Despite playing a key role in the overall performance of a flexible rockfall barrier, this phenomenon is still poorly understood at present. An innovative approach for quantitatively characterizing this effect based on dimensional analysis is proposed in this paper. The analysis rests on a hypothesis that the relevant variables in the impact problem can be combined into three strongly correlated dimensionless parameters. The relationship between these dimensionless parameters (i.e., the scaling relationship) is subsequently investigated and validated by means of data generated with a finite element model. The validation process shows that the dimensionless parameters are apt and that the proposed scaling relationship characterizes the bullet effect with a reasonable level of accuracy. An example from the literature involving numerical simulation of a full rock barrier is considered, and satisfactory agreement between the calculated performance of the barrier and that predicted by the established scaling relationship is observed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12


  1. Anderheggen E, Volkwein A, Grassl H (2002) Numerical simulation of highly flexible rockfall protection systems. In: Proceedings of Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics. Vienna, Austria

  2. Arndt B, Ortiz T, Turner AK (2009) Colorado’s full-scale field testing of rockfall attenuator systems. Transp Res E-Circular, E-C141. Transportation Research Board, Colorado

  3. Bertolo P, Oggeri C, Peila D (2009) Full-scale testing of draped nets for rock fall protection. Can Geotech J 46(3):306–317. doi:10.1139/T08-126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buckingham E (1914) On physically similar systems: illustrations of the use of dimensional analysis. Phys Rev 4:345–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buzzi O, Giacomini A, Spadari M, Fityus S (2011) Numerical modeling of a rock fall mesh perforation upon impact. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the IACMAG 2011. Sydney, Australia, pp 1141–1146

  6. Cantarelli G, Giani GP, Gottardi G, Govoni L (2008) Modelling rockfall protection fences. In: The first world landslide forum—Proceedings. ICL, Tokyo, pp 103–108

  7. Cazzani A, Mongiovì L, Frenez T (2002) Dynamic finite element analysis of interceptive devices for falling rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(3):303–321. doi:10.1016/s1365-1609(02)00037-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Col R, Cocco (1996) Motivazioni tecniche ed economiche per la standardizzazione di prove sulle opere paramassi nella Provincia Autonoma di Trento. In: Giornata di studio su “La protezione contro la caduta di massi dai versanti rocciosi”. GEAM, Torino, pp 65–72

  9. Descoeudres F, Montani Stoffel S, Böll A, Gerber W, Labiouse V (1999) Rockfalls. In: Coping study on disaster resilient infrastructure. IDNDR, Zurich, pp 37–47

  10. Duffy JD, Smith DD (1990) Field tests and evaluation of rockfall restraining nets. No. CA/TL-90/05, Final Report. California Dept. of Transportation, San Luis Obispo

    Google Scholar 

  11. EOTA (2008) Guideline for European technical approval of falling rock protection kits (ETAG 027). Brussels

  12. Gerber W (2001) Guideline for the approval of rockfall protection kits. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), Swiss Federal Research Institute, Berne

    Google Scholar 

  13. Giani GP (1992) Rock slope stability analysis. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grassl H, Volkwein A, Anderheggen E, Ammann WJ (2002) Steel-net rockfall protection—experimental and numerical simulation. In: Seventh International Conference on Structures Under Shock and Impact. Montreal, Canada, pp 143–153

  15. Hearn G, Barrett RK, Henson HH (1995) Testing and modeling of two rockfall barriers. In: Transportation research record, vol. 1504. National Research Council, Washington, pp 1–11

  16. Johnson W (1972) Impact strength of materials. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Langhaar HL (1951) Dimensional analysis and theory of models. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Li QM, Jones N (2000) On dimensionless numbers for dynamic plastic response of structural members. Arch Appl Mech 70(4):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peila D, Oggeri C (2005) Barriere paramassi a rete - Tecnologia e criteri pregettuali. GEAM, Torino

  20. Peila D, Pelizza S, Sassudelli F (1998) Evaluation of behaviour of rockfall restraining nets by full scale tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng 31(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Volkwein A (2005) Numerical Simulation of flexible rockfall protection systems. In: Proceedings of Computing in Civil Engineering. ASCE, Cancun

  22. Volkwein A, Melis L, Haller B, Pfeifer R (2005) Protection from landslides and high speed rockfall events—reconstruction of Chapman’s Peak Drive. In: IABSE Symposium Lisbon 2005. Structures and extrem events. IABSE Reports vol. 90, incl. CD: 8 p

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Buzzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spadari, M., Giacomini, A., Buzzi, O. et al. Prediction of the Bullet Effect for Rockfall Barriers: a Scaling Approach. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45, 131–144 (2012).

Download citation


  • Rockfall barrier
  • Kinetic energy
  • Bullet effect
  • Stress concentration
  • Dimensional analysis